NAB was established in 1999 with the blessing of Gen Pervez Musharraf’s military government. In his own words, “NAB was created to put the fear of God in the corrupt”. Like all military rulers, General Musharraf too had little faith in the organic growth and empowerment of state institutions, hence the creation of an all-encompassing federal establishment to bring corruption to account. NAB was to be responsible for investigating financial crimes inside the government as well as in the public and private sectors. Defaulters were to be brought to task under the National Accountability Ordinance (NAO) promulgated in 1999. The NAO went one step further, creating a mechanism to recover the stolen wealth with the aid of voluntary return and plea bargain (sections 25 and 26 NAO XVIII). This is where the NAO drew its distinction from its predecessor the Ehtesab Act of 1997 (repealed in 1999) that created the Ehtesab Cell.
Ironically, neither of the two anti-corruption agencies were creations of a democratically elected government. The Ehtesab Commission (later named Ehtesab Cell and then Bureau) was created by the appointed caretaker government under presidential ordinance after Benazir Bhutto’s dismissal. The caretaker Prime Minister Malik Meraj Khalid, along with his Cabinet, was supposed to lay the groundwork for elections, but unfortunately they exceeded their mandate. The Ehtesab Commission was thus set up under the premise that accountability was more important than administration. Eventually, elections did take place and Nawaz Sharif’s party won by a landslide. Despite the undemocratic and unconstitutional status of the Ehtesab Commission, Prime Minister Nawaz Sharif endorsed it with amendments through the Ehtesab Act in 1997. He renamed it the Ehtesab Bureau and moved it to the PM Secretariat headed by the infamous Saifur Rehman, a close confidant of Sharif. Thus, began the endless cycle of politicising accountability using state institutions. The EC accused and later incriminated Benazir Bhutto for misuse of power and living beyond means. One by one, the EC used its considerable resources to target any and all rivals of the ruling party, be they politicians or the media. This led to countless party defections, horse trading and a general atmosphere of toxicity in the political environment. Mian Nawaz Sharif’s government was not to last long, a mere two years after the EC had been established, General Musharraf toppled his government in a coup and the rest, as they say, is history.
Until this cyclical politicisation of accountability is not brought to a halt, NAB will continue to be regarded with doubt and suspicion while the country will stay suspended in the throes of corruption that refuses to let it move forward
NAO started strong, tough on corruption, and reflected General Musharraf’s then resolve to combat this menace. Unfortunately, this did not last long. Musharraf and NAB soon fell prey to opportunism, plea bargains and eventual write-offs which would lead to more of the same. Eventually the corruption of the PPP and PML-N, that was to be disseminated by NAB, was seen to be courted and reconciled first through the Charter of Democracy and later the National Reconciliation Ordinance. It is no surprise then that the role of NAB has been often called into question. One of the greatest flaws in the NAO and subsequently the practices of NAB is the practice of ‘plea bargaining’ and as retired Chief Justice of the Supreme Court Jawwad S Khawaja rightly termed it, “institutionalised corruption”. In his 24-day tenure as Supreme Court Chief Justice, he exposed NAB for its failure in resolving mega corruption scams and ordered NAB to open an investigation against its ex-chairman Fasih Bokhari for misuse of authority.
The National Accountability Ordinance gives sweeping authority to NAB as it operates, in theory, at a federal level. The chairman NAB holds discretionary powers in all stages; from appointments of various NAB officials, initiating references, the extent of investigations to carrying out pardons via voluntary returns, plea bargaining. Considering that the Ordinance was passed by a military ruler, it structures the NAB similarly. Power is centralised and like everything in Pakistan, eventually susceptible to political manoeuvring.
The past week has been tumultuous for Hamza Shehbaz and his ilk. With references against the Houses of Sharif and Zardari coming to the fore, it is no wonder that the opposition parties have found common ground and are crying foul. NAB’s botched attempts to arrest Hamza Shehbaz from his residence served no purpose other than to give the junior Shehbaz an occasion to express his disdain for the present government and NAB. Hamza Shehbaz was given temporary relief by the High Court in the form of interim bail and the standoff between NAB and PML-N workers subsided. What followed was the predictable ugliness that has now come to be associated with Pakistani politics. Marriyum Aurangzeb declared the State to be “spreading terrorism”. The vitriol spewed by the PML-N is often to distract the public from the many scandals plaguing the family, from Ashiana to Saaf Pani, the amounts of money said to be embezzled and misappropriated is confounding. The heads of two main political parties of Pakistan lie embroiled in assets beyond means cases, money laundering that goes into the billions and many other such references still under investigation. For a country on the verge of bankruptcy, these values are staggering and prove that in Pakistan, power is King. The facts of all these cases belie the premise that the accused plead. It is all a question of ‘I scratch your back, you scratch mine’. Whilst NAB’s heavy handedness is often considered disproportionate, it is not new. It is common knowledge that in the case of NAB, the accused is often guilty until proven innocent. The onus of disproving guilt is his alone. Where the Sharifs and Zardaris are concerned, it will be pertinent to note that for them, the chickens have come home to roost.
NAB has been used time and again by successive governments (military and civil) to further their own agendas. The PPP and PML-N need not create a hue and cry for something they themselves are guilty of perpetrating. While two wrongs don’t make a right, it is unfortunate that PTI has shown itself to be more of the same. This has resulted in the kind of stalemate that Pakistan has been a victim of for most of its existence. The immaturity and lack of foresight by political parties to move forward and grant true autonomy to the anti-graft watchdog has led to a stagnation in the political landscape. While the looting continues, the government of the day finds itself immune from checks and balances till the time it is voted out and its rival party comes into power to continue with the plunder. Until this cyclical politicisation of accountability is not brought to a halt, NAB will continue to be regarded with doubt and suspicion while the country will stay suspended in the throes of corruption that refuses to let it move forward.
